This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Following someone.

i understand the case fine.
and 'i dont need you to go to the store'
is not the same as 'no sir, its not necessary to follow the suspicious person you called us about'.
one is a benign act with very little opportunity for trouble,
the other is ignoring police advise and rushing into a situation you fully expect could be dangerous.

Re: Following someone.

Originally Posted by Tucker Case

You obviously don't know all of the techniques employed by paparazzi.

If you are speaking of the paparazzi with no other qualifying terms other than paparazzi, the idea conjured in the minds of people upon hearing just that term is of groups of people with cameras following celebrities around taking pictures and calling their name for attention/poses.

If you wish to speak of certain elements of the paparazzi, which are non-standard, then you should use a term qualifying what you mean........

Otherwise, you either spread misinformation to those who believe what you say, or look like a fool to those who find your suggestion ridiculous.

"I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

Re: Following someone.

Originally Posted by Zyphlin

He also apparently thought the guy looked criminally suspicious as well, he also indicated he was unsure of the whole "unarmed" part. My point is that while a person can make assumptions and guesses about an individuals age, criminal record, armerment, etc...they're just that, assumptions and guesses, unless they have a means of absolutely knowing it. So attempting to use absolute knowledge as a means of clearing him, in the case of joko, or condemning him, in the case of Dion, is a bit off base

I did not condemn him ... I said if he got out of his car and followed me as i ran into an isolated region in the dark with no one else around and came close enough I could touch him ... I would turn to face and unless it was obvious he meant no harm I would kick him in the balls or try to defend myself.

George had the knowledge an officer was on the way. George had the knowledge that he himself was armed. George had the knowledge he had his safe place in an SUV and the kid in the hoodie was running away on foot. George stated the person was running away and complained "they always get away".

George should have had knowledge of Florida law on concealed weapons and that I do not know.

My argument was there was clearly evidence to arrest him and it should go to trial and both humans should have all the evidence presented.

We have facts ... and that it does not look good for George ...yet possibly forensic evidence will demonstrate that Trayvon had a gun and jumped in Georges car or some crazy twist like that.

IMHO and purely subjective I do not really believe it was race ... just a wannabe cop with judgement issues and lack of knowledge of the law. Maybe other evidence will prove I am wrong on this opinion. I am glad it is gong to trial!

Now back to the person being chased and followed (be it me, Trayvon or my son) ... they would only know a husky guy in the dark was at first following by car and then then chose to leave their SUV in the dark in an isolated region and chose to take chase and if they cross that boundaries and get close enough ... the only thing I would condemn them to is to my self defense of them crossing a boundary.

Re: Following someone.

Originally Posted by American

Look at the damn votes. Why are liberals always threatened by everything? Frankly I'm getting a little sick of it.

I just read an scientific study that examined the personality traits of liberals and conservatives, tracing back to childhood. It just so happens that conservatives feel more threatened by more things versus liberals. This is why conservatives believe in owning guns, beefing up the military, and putting more cops on the street.

I just read an scientific study that examined the personality traits of liberals and conservatives, tracing back to childhood. It just so happens that conservatives feel more threatened by more things versus liberals. This is why conservatives believe in owning guns, beefing up the military, and putting more cops on the street.

I'd love to see your survey and conclusions, especially in light of he number of liberals here that own weapons, have served and support in the military, and the number of times democrats have bemoaned the bidet it's and loss of police officers causing rapes and murders to increase.

Re: Following someone.

Originally Posted by Caine

If you are speaking of the paparazzi with no other qualifying terms other than paparazzi, the idea conjured in the minds of people upon hearing just that term is of groups of people with cameras following celebrities around taking pictures and calling their name for attention/poses.

I am not responsible for the erroneous assumptions of others. Their errors are their own.

If you wish to speak of certain elements of the paparazzi, which are non-standard, then you should use a term qualifying what you mean........

All elements of the paparazzi will employ stealth tactics to follow their quarry. Your image of what they do has no bearing on the reality of what they do.

Otherwise, you either spread misinformation to those who believe what you say, or look like a fool to those who find your suggestion ridiculous.

The people who find my suggestion ridiculous are guilty of ignorance, so why would I be bothered by their assessment of me?

The problem is that the ignorant are already filled with misinformation so they assume that true information is misinformation. It's sad when they cling to their misinformation to a degree that they reject true information, but, again, that is not my fault.